Ben Richardson, CEO at SulNOx, confident they can cost-effectively decarbonise commercial shipping. Watch the video here.
@apunter2. I heard that their broker quit some time ago - I wonder why? So I agree that they will replace them soon. Two miracles in one night. You said something that sounds right. And we agree on something. Who would believe it.
Retendering when you've only had the auditor for a few years is often a sign of disagreement over accounting. I've pointed out at length the accounting problems with all of this. And now moving to a smaller firm is not good. They should have picked one of the big4 to alleviate the existing concerns. This is starting to smell more. Sorry guys.
@elonmuskthescent, there are a very small number of individuals on this BB who do still have some concerns about this company and are willing to express and debate them. That doesn't mean that they are the same person or are paid (I can confirm that there is only one of me, I only post under this name and I am not paid to do so).
Perhaps it makes you feel better to convince yourself that there can only be one person with any remaining doubts. So be it. Whatever helps you sleep at night.
In the meantime I'll rely upon the facts. If the company can prove it's business model works then great - because I could then consider investing.
@Apunter2, there is revenue recorded in the interims. Again you are responding with nonsense.
The prospectus and the interim accounts are the most comprehensive documents that have been released. There is not much else to rely upon. And some of the rns's are just misleading. Such as the one suggesting that the clients were enormous companies like Carrefour - most on this BB initially assumed those companies were the clients.
@apunter2, I'm not sure why you are getting so worked up. You clearly are very insecure when anyone has a different view to your own. I suggest you just filter me out. You never have anything worthwhile to say in response anyway. Certainly not to my posts. I'll leave Extrader to answer for himself. And I'll leave you to your conspiracy theories. But watch that blood pressure.
@extrader, I don't really understand the details around the fee structure, and whether the upfront fee is offsettable. They may be able to record some of it earlier than straight-line over the three years - especially if they can demonstrate that much of this is essentially commission income as an agent. So some of it may be recognised at the time that the client receives their funding. Of course they are also providing some services over a much longer period - and some will need to be spread accordingly.
On your other point - the company will need to assess how much cost can be capitalised as IP each period and how much needs to be expensed as admin costs. My point was that it all needs to be funded, primarily by the placing proceeds.
Interestingly the company does show revenue in its last interim accounts. But pretty much all offset by cost of sales. There is no explanation of what this relates to - which is very poor (these interims were not audited). Cash inflow from operations on page 8 is a very measly £3,000!
@farraway. Just to clarify - I don't tend to agree. I don't think the model works. And that's why storm harbour is taking so long with the securitization. Of course others will say that this company will have been vetted and has been working on this for years. But this is a very small team and AZ probably knows he is out of his depth. The accounting mistake in the prospectus supports this. There was only one material balance, the goodwill. And that entry was wrong and needed to be corrected in the interim accounts. It's a very basic mistake.
Of course if the company can get this securitization done then the evidence changes and I'll need to reconsider. But until they can demonstrate that the business model works by getting this done this stock is just "hope" value. And any investor should only risk what they can easily afford to lose on such an unproven business.
@extrader. Fair point. But don't forget that they are presumably paying 14 staff, AZ himself, property costs, legal and other professional fees etc. That will make a big dent into the placing fees. Of course we have been told that they are also currently earning revenues which will help. However this also doesn't really make sense. Revenues can only be recognised when you are providing goods and services. You can't generally recognise revenue for set-up work etc. That's one of the practices that was eliminated with the new IFRS on revenue recognition. The clients will get no stand-alone value simply from the onboarding service. They will only get value from future financing etc. So syme will not be able to recognise revenue until this later date - even if the onboarding fees are non refundable. Perhaps AZ was talking loosely when he referred to revenues - and was really meaning cash.
@Iknownuffin, don't forget that the IP only cost 509,000 euros to develop (as per prospectus). So I really can't see it being that valuable. One of the many things that does not make sense about this company. It does suggest that these rampers talking about the massive benefit of their stock control system are talking rubbish. How good can a stock control system be that cost 509,000 euros. And this cost is the total cost to develop all of their IP!!
However if they can get a financing and securitization away they will be proving the business model works. That's the critical milestone.
This business does look interesting - but I don't really understand exactly what they do. I am also wary that the company seems to have been around for many years - why's this taken so long to develop?
I also see that the spread is extremely wide.
Any thoughts would be much appreciated - or any links to objective explanation or research of the business.
Well done weathergeek. Goodwill is just an accounting "residual" on a business acquisition.
What is striking is that the total cost to develop this IP which underlies the business was only 519,000 euros. AZ's cost of his shares is almost nil.
@Mick1, page 94 of the prospectus shows how much it cost to develop this IP in the original Italian company....519,000 euros. Yes - that is it! Don't trust me - just have a look at the prospectus. Page 92 states that this is the Italian entity that developed the IP. Page 94 states the development cost!!!
@extrader. Yes - I scrolled through the HUR BB a few weeks ago. It was very depressing. Reading messages from investors who had clearly risked way more than they could afford to lose. And now recognising that this would impact their own and their family's future.
Yes - both tax and dividends are based upon solus, not consolidated accounts. So the £225m loss should be of no relevance to either. The company messed up the accounting in its prospectus. It initially recorded goodwill - but then in the interim accounts it changed this approach and instead recorded a very large share based payment expense from the reverse acquisition. It's one of the reasons that I don't trust their accounting for the true sale approach. They couldn't even get their own accounting right.